Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's notes:
(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.
(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.
(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.
(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.
(5) The following typographical error has been corrected:
ARTICLE CHARLES ALBERT: "... made a savage demonstration against
him at the Palazzo Greppi, whence he escaped in the night with
difficulty and returned to Piedmont with his defeated army." 'army
amended from armp'.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION
VOLUME V, SLICE VIII
Chariot to Chatelaine
ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:
CHARIOT CHARLES MARTEL
CHARISIUS, FLAVIUS SOSIPATER CHARLESTON (Illinois, U.S.A)
CHARITON CHARLESTON (South Carolina, U.S.A.)
CHARITY AND CHARITIES CHARLESTON (West Virginia, U.S.A.)
CHARIVARI CHARLESTOWN
CHARKHARI CHARLET, NICOLAS TOUSSAINT
CHARLATAN CHARLEVILLE
CHARLEMAGNE CHARLEVOIX, PIERRE FRANCOIS XAVIER DE
CHARLEMAGNE, JEAN ARMAND CHARLEVOIX
CHARLEMONT, JAMES CAULFEILD CHARLOTTE
CHARLEROI (town in Belgium) CHARLOTTENBURG
CHARLEROI (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) CHARLOTTESVILLE
CHARLES CHARLOTTETOWN
CHARLES II. (Roman emperor) CHARM
CHARLES III. (Roman emperor) CHARNAY, (CLAUDE JOSEPH) DESIRE
CHARLES IV. (Roman emperor) CHARNEL HOUSE
CHARLES V. (Roman emperor) CHARNOCK, JOB
CHARLES VI. (Roman emperor) CHARNOCK, ROBERT
CHARLES VII. (Roman emperor) CHARNOCKITE
CHARLES I. (king of Great Britain) CHARNWOOD FOREST
CHARLES II. (king of G. Britain) CHAROLLES
CHARLES I. and II. (of France) CHARON
CHARLES III. (king of France) CHARONDAS
CHARLES IV. (king of France) CHARPENTIER, FRANCOIS
CHARLES V. (king of France) CHARRIERE, AGNES ISABELLE EMILIE DE
CHARLES VI. (king of France) CHARRON, PIERRE
CHARLES VII. (king of France) CHARRUA
CHARLES VIII. (king of France) CHART
CHARLES IX. (king of France) CHARTER
CHARLES X. (king of France) CHARTERED COMPANIES
CHARLES I. (king of Hungary) CHARTERHOUSE
CHARLES I. (king of Naples) CHARTER-PARTY
CHARLES II. (king of Naples) CHARTERS TOWERS
CHARLES II. (king of Navarre) CHARTIER, ALAIN
CHARLES III. (king of Navarre) CHARTISM
CHARLES (king of Rumania) CHARTRES
CHARLES II. (king of Spain) CHARTREUSE
CHARLES III. (king of Spain) CHARTREUSE, LA GRANDE
CHARLES IV. (king of Spain) CHARWOMAN
CHARLES IX. (king of Sweden) CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND
CHARLES X. (king of Sweden) CHASE, SAMUEL
CHARLES XI. (king of Sweden) CHASE, WILLIAM MERRITT
CHARLES XII. (king of Sweden) CHASE
CHARLES XIII. (king of Sweden) CHASING
CHARLES XIV. (king of Sweden) CHASLES, VICTOR EUPHEMIEN PHILARETE
CHARLES XV. (king of Sweden) CHASSE
CHARLES (duke of Brittany) CHASSE
CHARLES (duke of Burgundy) CHASSELOUP-LAUBAT, FRANCOIS
CHARLES (count of Flanders) CHASSEPOT
CHARLES I. (duke of Lorraine) CHASSESRIAU, THEODORE
CHARLES II. (duke of Lorraine) CHASSIS
CHARLES III. or II. (duke of Lrn.) CHASTELARD, PIERRE DE BOCSOZEL DE
CHARLES IV. or III. (duke of Lrn.) CHASTELLAIN, GEORGES
CHARLES V. or IV. (duke of Lor.) CHASUBLE
CHARLES II. (duke of Parma) CHATEAU
CHARLES (archduke of Austria) CHATEAUBRIAND, FRANCOIS RENE
CHARLES (cardinal of Lorraine) CHATEAUBRIANT
CHARLES (prince of Lorraine) CHATEAUDUN
CHARLES (count of Valois) CHATEAU-GONTIER
CHARLES (prince of Viana) CHATEAUNEUF, LA BELLE
CHARLES, ELIZABETH CHATEAU-RENAULT, DE ROUSSELET
CHARLES, JACQUES ALEXANDRE CESAR CHATEAUROUX, MARIE ANNE
CHARLES, THOMAS CHATEAUROUX
CHARLES ALBERT CHATEAU-THIERRY
CHARLES AUGUSTUS CHATELAIN
CHARLES EDWARD CHATELAINE
CHARLES EMMANUEL I.
CHARIOT (derived from an O. Fr. word, formed from _char_, a car), in
antiquity, a conveyance (Gr. [Greek: arma], Lat. _currus_) used in
battle, for the chase, in public processions and in games. The Greek
chariot had two wheels, and was made to be drawn by two horses; if a
third or, more commonly, two reserve horses were added, they were
attached on each side of the main pair by a single trace fastened to the
front of the chariot, as may be seen on two prize vases in the British
Museum from the Panathenaic games at Athens. On the monuments there is
no other sign of traces, from the want of which wheeling round must have
been difficult. Immediately on the axle ([Greek: axon], _axis_), without
springs of any kind, rested the basket or body ([Greek: diphros]) of the
chariot, which consisted of a floor to stand on, and a semicircular
guard round the front about half the height of the driver. It was
entirely open at the back, so that the combatant might readily leap to
the ground and up again as was necessary. There was no seat, and
generally only room for the combatant and his charioteer to stand in.
The pole ([Greek: rumos], _temo_) was probably attached to the middle of
the axle, though it appears to spring from the front of the basket; at
the end of the pole was the yoke ([Greek: zygon], _jugum_), which
consisted of two small saddles fitting the necks of the horses, and
fastened by broad bands round the chest. Besides this the harness of
each horse consisted of a bridle and a pair of reins, mostly the same as
in use now, made of leather and ornamented with studs of ivory or metal.
The reins were passed through rings attached to the collar bands or
yoke, and were long enough to be tied round the waist of the charioteer
in case of his having to defend himself. The wheels and body of the
chariot were usually of wood, strengthened in places with bronze or
iron; the wheels had from four to eight spokes and tires of bronze or
iron. This description applies generally to the chariots of all the
nations of antiquity; the differences consisted chiefly in the
mountings. The chariots of the Egyptians and Assyrians, with whom the
bow was the principal arm of attack, were richly mounted with quivers
full of arrows, while those of the Greeks, whose characteristic weapon
was the spear, were plain except as regards mere decoration. Among the
Persians, again, and more remarkably among the ancient Britons, there
was a class of chariot having the wheels mounted with sharp,
sickle-shaped blades, which cut to pieces whatever came in their way.
This was probably an invention of the Persians; Cyrus the younger
employed these chariots in large numbers. Among the Greeks and Romans,
on the other hand, the chariot had passed out of use in war before
historical times, and was retained only for races in the public games,
or for processions, without undergoing any alteration apparently, its
form continuing to correspond with the description of Homer, though it
was lighter in build, having to carry only the charioteer. On two
Panathenaic prize vases in the British Museum are figures of racing
_bigae_, in which, contrary to the description given above, the driver
is seated with his feet resting on a board hanging down in front close
to the legs of his horses. The _biga_ itself consists of a seat resting
on the axle, with a rail at each side to protect the driver from the
wheels. The chariot was unsuited to the uneven soil of Greece and Italy,
and it is not improbable that these nations had brought it with them as
part of their original habits from their former seats in the East. In
the remains of Egyptian and Assyrian art there are numerous
representations of chariots, from which it may be seen with what
richness they were sometimes ornamented. The "iron" chariots in use
among the Jews appear to have been chariots strengthened or plated with
metal, and no doubt were of the form above described, which prevailed
generally among the other ancient nations. (See also CARRIAGE.)
The chief authorities are J.C. Ginzrot, _Die Wagen and Fahrwerke der
Griechen und Romer_ (1817); C.F. Grashof, _Uber das Fuhrwerk bei Homer
und Hesiod_ (1846); W. Leaf in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, v.; E.
Buchholz, _Die homerischen Realien_ (1871-1885); W. Helbig, _Das
homerische Epos aus den Denkmalern erlautert_ (1884), and the article
"Currus" in Daremberg and Saglio, _Dictionnaire des Antiquites_.
CHARISIUS, FLAVIUS SOSIPATER, Latin grammarian, flourished about the
middle of the 4th century A.D. He was probably an African by birth,
summoned to Constantinople to take the place of Euanthius, a learned
commentator on Terence. The _Ars Grammatica_ of Charisius, in five
books, addressed to his son (not a Roman, as the preface shows), has
come down to us in a mutilated condition, the beginning of the first,
part of the fourth, and the greater part of the fifth book having been
lost. The work, which is merely a compilation, is valuable as containing
excerpts from the earlier writers on grammar, who are in many cases
mentioned by name--Q. Remmius Palaemon, C. Julius Romanus, Cominianus.
The best edition is by H. Keil, _Grammatici Latini_, i. (1857); see
also article by G. Gotz in Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_, iii. 2
(1899); Teuffel-Schwabe, _Hist. of Roman Literature_ (Eng. trans.), S
419, I. 2; Frohde, in _Jahr. f. Philol._, 18 Suppl. (1892), 567-672.
CHARITON, of Aphrodisias in Caria, the author of a Greek romance
entitled _The Loves of Chaereas and Callirrhoe_, probably flourished in
the 4th century A.D. The action of the story, which is to a certain
extent historical, takes place during the time of the Peloponnesian War.
Opinions differ as to the merits of the romance, which is an imitation
of Xenophon of Ephesus and Heliodorus.
Editions by J.P. D'Orville (1783), G.A. Hirschig (1856) and R. Hercher
(1859); there is an (anonymous) English translation (1764); see also
E. Rohde, _Der griechische Roman_ (1900).
CHARITY AND CHARITIES. The word "charity," or love, represents the
principle of the good life. It stands for a mood or habit of mind and an
endeavour. From it, as a habit of mind, springs the social and personal
endeavour which in the widest sense we may call charity. The two
correspond. Where the habit of mind has not been gained, the endeavour
fluctuates and is relatively purposeless. In so far as it has been
gained, the endeavour is founded on an intelligent scrutiny of social
conditions and guided by a definite purpose. In the one case it is
realized that some social theory must be found by us, if our action is
to be right and consistent; in the other case no need of such a theory
is felt. This article is based on the assumption that there are
principles in charity or charitable work, and that these can be
ascertained by a study of the development of social conditions, and
their relation to prevalent social aims and religious or philosophic
conceptions. It is assumed also that the charity of the religious life,
if rightly understood, cannot be inconsistent with that of the social
life.
Perhaps some closer definition of charity is necessary. The words that
signify goodwill towards the community and its members are primarily
words expressive of the affections of family life in the relations
existing between parents, and between parent and child. As will be
seen, the analogies underlying such phrases as "God the Father,"
"children of God," "brethren," have played a great part in the
development of charitable thought in pre-Christian as well as in
Christian days. The germ, if we may say so, of the words [Greek:
philia, agape], _amor_, love; _amicitia_, friendship, is the sexual or
the parental relation. With the realization of the larger life in man
the meaning of the word expands. _Caritas_, or charity, strikes
another note--high price, and thus dearness. It is charity, indeed,
expressed in mercantile metaphor; and it would seem that it was
associated in thought with the word [Greek: charis], which has also a
commercial meaning, but signifies as well favour, gratitude, grace,
kindness. Partly thus, perhaps, it assumed and suggested a nobler
conception; and sometimes, as, for instance, in English ecclesiastical
documents, it was spelt _charitas_. [Greek: Agape], which in the
Authorized Version of the Bible is translated charity, was used by St
Paul as a translation of the Hebrew word _hesed_, which in the Old
Testament is in the same version translated "mercy"--as in Hosea vi.
6, "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice." This word represents the
charity of kindness and goodness, as distinguished from almsgiving.
Almsgiving, _sedaqah_, is translated by the word [Greek: eleemosune]
in the Septuagint, and in the Authorized Version by the word
"righteousness." It represents the deed or the gift which is due--done
or made, not spontaneously, but under a sense of religious obligation.
In the earlier Christian period the word almsgiving has this meaning,
and was in that sense applied to a wide range of actions and
contracts, from a gift to a beggar at a church door to a grant and a
tenure of land. It also, in the word almoner, represented the
fulfilment of the religious obligation with the aid of an agent or
delegate. The words charity or love (_caritas_ or [Greek: agape]), on
the other hand, without losing the tone with which the thought of
parental or family love inspires them, assume a higher meaning. In
religious thought they imply an ideal life, as represented by such
expressions as "love (_agape_) of God." This on the one side; and on
the other an ideal social relation, in such words as "love of man."
Thus in the word "charity" religious and social associations meet; and
thus regarded the word means a disciplined and habitual mood in which
the mind is considerate of the welfare of others individually and
generally, and devises what is for their real good, and in which the
intelligence and the will strive to fulfil the mind's purpose. Charity
thus has no necessary relation to relief or alms. To give a lecture,
or to nurse a sick man who is not in want or "poor," may be equally a
deed of charity; though in fact charity concerns itself largely with
the classes usually called "the poor," and with problems of distress
and relief. Relief, however, is not an essential part of charity or
charitable work. It is one of many means at its disposal. If the world
were so poor that no one could make a gift, or so wealthy that no one
needed it, charity--the charity of life and of deeds--would remain.
The history of charity is a history of many social and religious
theories, influences and endeavours, that have left their mark alike
upon the popular and the cultivated thought of the present day. The
inconsistencies of charitable effort and argument may thus in part be
accounted for. To understand the problem of charity we have therefore
(1) to consider the stages of charitable thought--the primitive, pagan,
Greek and Roman, Jewish and Christian elements, that make up the modern
consciousness in regard to charity, and also the growth of the habit of
"charity" as representing a gradually educated social instinct. (2) We
have also to consider in their relation to charity the results of recent
investigations of the conditions of social life. (3) At each stage we
have to note the corresponding stage of practical administration in
public relief and private effort--for the division between public or
"poor-law" relief and charity which prevails in England is,
comparatively speaking, a novelty, and, generally speaking, the work of
charity can hardly be appreciated or understood if it be considered
without reference to public relief. (4) As to the present day, we have
to consider practical suggestions in regard to such subjects as charity
and economic thought, charity organization, friendly visiting and
almonership, co-operation with the poor-law, charity and thrift,
parochial management, hospitals and medical relief, exceptional distress
and the "unemployed," the utilization of endowments and their
supervision, and their adaptation to new needs and emergencies. (5) We
have also throughout to consider charitable help in relation to classes
of dependants, who appear early in the history of the question--widows
and orphans, the sick and the aged, vagrants and wayfarers.
First in the series come the charities of the family and of hospitality;
then the wider charities of religion, the charities of the community,
and of individual donors and of mutual help. These gradually assumed
importance in communities which consisted originally of self-supporting
classes, within which widows and orphans, for instance, would be rather
provided for, in accordance with recognized class obligations, than
relieved. Then come habitual almsgiving, the charitable endowment, and
the modern charitable institution and association. But throughout the
test of progress or decadence appears to be the condition of the family.
The family is the source, the home and the hearthstone of charity. It
has been created but slowly, and there is naturally a constant tendency
to break away from its obligations and to ignore and depreciate its
utility. Yet the family, as we now have it, is itself the outcome of
infinite thought working through social instinct, and has at each stage
of its development indicated a general advance. To it, therefore,
constant reference must be made.
PART I.--PRIMITIVE CHARITY
The study of early communities has brought to light the history of the
development of the family. "Marriage in its lowest phases is by no means
a matter of affection or companionship"; and only very slowly has the
position of both parents been recognized as implying different but
correlative responsibilities towards their child. Only very slowly,
also, has the morality necessary to the making of the family been won.
Charity at earlier stages is hardly recognized as a virtue, nor
infanticide as an evil. Hospitality--the beginning of a larger social
life--is non-existent. The self-support of the community is secured by
marriage, and when relations fail marriage becomes a provision against
poverty. Then by the tribal system is created another safeguard against
want. But apart also from these methods of maintenance, at a very early
stage there is charitable relief. The festivals of the solstices and
equinoxes, and of the seasons, are the occasions for sacrifice and
relief; and, as Christmas customs prove, the instinct to give help or
alms at such festival periods still remains. Charity is concerned
primarily with certain elemental forces of social life: the relation
between these primitive instincts and impulses that still influence
charity should not, therefore, be overlooked. The basis of social life
is also the basis of charitable thought and action.
The savage is the civilized man in the rough. "The lowest races have,"
Lord Avebury writes, "no institution of marriage." Many have no word
for "dear" or "beloved." The child belongs to the tribe rather than to
the parent. In these circumstances a problem of charity such as the
following may arise:--"Am I to starve, while my sister has children
whom she can sell?" a question asked of Burton by a negro. From the
point of view of the tribe, an able-bodied man would be more valuable
than dependent children, and the relationship of the larger family of
brothers and sisters would be a truer claim to help than that of
mother and child. Subsequently the child is recognized as related, not
to the father, but to the mother, and there is "a kind of bond which
lasts for life between mother and child, although the father is a
stranger to it." Slowly only is the relative position of both parents,
with different but correlative responsibilities, recognized. The first
two steps of charity have then been made: the social value of the bond
between the mother, and then between the father, and the child has
been recognized. Until this point is reached the morality necessary to
the making of the family is wanting, and for a long time afterwards it
is hardly won. The virtue of chastity--the condition precedent to the
higher family life--is unrecognized. Indeed, the set of such religious
thought as there may be is against it. Abstract conceptions, even in
the nobler races, are lacking. The religion of life is vaguely
struggling with its animality, and that which it at last learns to
rule it at first worships. In these circumstances there is little
charity for the child and little for the stranger. "There is," Dr
Schweinfurth wrote in his _Heart of Africa_, "an utter want of
wholesome intercourse between race and race. For any member of a tribe
that speaks one dialect to cross the borders of a tribe that speaks
another is to make a venture at the hazard of his life." The religious
obligations that fostered and sanctified family life among the Greeks
and Romans and Jews are unknown. Much later in development comes
charity for the child, with the abhorrence of infanticide--against
which the Jewish-Christian charity of 2000 years ago uttered its most
vigorous protests. If the child belonged primarily to the tribe or
state, its maintenance or destruction was a common concern. This
motive influenced the Greeks, who are historically nearer the earlier
forms of social life than ourselves. For the common good they exposed
the deformed child; but also "where there were too many, for in our
state population has a limit," as Aristotle says, "the babe or unborn
child was destroyed." And so, to lighten their own responsibilities,
parents were wont to do in the slow years of the degradation of the
Roman empire, though the interest of the state then required a
contrary policy. The transition to our present feeling of
responsibility for child-life has been very gradual and uncertain,
through the middle ages and even till the 18th century. Strictly it
may be said that all penitentiaries and other similar institutions are
concrete protests on behalf of a better family life. The movement for
the care of children in the 18th century naturally and instinctively
allied itself with the penitentiary movement. The want of regard for
child-life, when the rearing of children becomes a source of economic
pressure, suggests why in earlier stages of civilization all that
charitable apparatus which we now think necessary for the assistance
of children is wanting, even if the need, so far as it does arise, is
not adequately met by the recognized obligations of the clan-family or
brotherhood.
In the case of barbarous races charity and self-support may be
considered from some other points of view. Self-support is secured in
two ways--by marriage and by slavery. "For a man or woman to be
unmarried after the age of thirty is unheard of" (T.H. Lewin, _Wild
Races of South-East India_). On the other hand, if any one is without
a father, mother or other relative, and destitute of the necessaries
of life, he may sell himself and become a slave. Thus slavery becomes
a provision for poverty when relations fail. The clan-family may serve
the same purpose. David Livingstone describes the formation of the
clan-family among the Bakuena. "Each man, by virtue of paternity, is
chief of his own children. They build huts round his.... Near the
centre of each circle of huts is a spot called a 'kotla,' with a
fireplace; here they work, eat, &c. A poor man attaches himself to the
'kotla' of a rich one, and is considered a child of the latter." Thus
the clan-family is also a poor-relief association.
Studies in folklore bring to light many relations between the charity
of the old world and that of our own day.
The early community.
In regard to the charity of the early community, we may take the 8th
century B.C. as the point of departure. The _Odyssey_ (about 800 B.C.)
and Hesiod (about 700 B.C.) are roughly parallel with Amos (816-775),
and represent two streams of thought that meet in the early Christian
period. The period covered by the _Odyssey_ seems to merge into that of
Hesiod. We take the former first, dealing with the clan-family and the
phratry, which are together the self-maintaining unit of society, with
the general relief of the poor, with hospitality, and with vagrancy. In
Hesiod we find the customary law of charity in the earlier community
definitely stated, and also indications of the normal methods of
neighbourly help which were in force in country districts. First of the
family and brotherhood, or phratry. The family (_Od_. viii. 582)
included alike the wife's father and the daughter's husband. It was thus
a clanlike family. Out of this was developed the phratry or brotherhood,
in which were included alike noble families, peasants and craftsmen,
united by a common worship and responsibilities and a common customary
law (_themis_). Zeus, the god of social life, was worshipped by the
phratry. He was the father of the law (_themis_). He was god of host and
guest. Society was thus based on law, the brotherhood and the family.
The irresponsible man, the man worthy of no respect or consideration,
was one who belonged to no brotherhood, was subject to no customary law,
and had no hearth or family. The phratry was, and became afterwards
still more, "a natural gild." Outside the self-sustaining phratry was
the stranger, including the wayfarer and the vagrant; and partly merged
in these classes was the beggar, the recognized recipient of the alms of
the community. To change one's abode and to travel was assumed to be a
cause of reproach (_Il_. ix. 648). The "land-louper" was naturally
suspected. On the other hand, a stranger's first thought in a new
country was whether the inhabitants were wild or social ([Greek:
dikaioi]), hospitable and God-fearing (_Od_. xiii. 201). Hospitality
thus became the first public charity; Zeus sent all strangers and
beggars, and it was against all law ([Greek: themis]) to slight them.
Out of this feeling--a kind of glorified almsgiving--grew up the system
of hospitality in Greek states and also in the Roman world. The host
greeted the stranger (or the suppliant). An oath of friendship was taken
by the stranger, who was then received with the greeting, Welcome
([Greek: chaire]), and water was provided for ablution, and food and
shelter. In the larger house there was a guests' table. In the hut he
shared the peasant's meal. The custom bound alike the rich and the poor.
On parting presents were given, usually food for the onward journey,
sometimes costly gifts. The obligation was mutual, that the host should
give hospitality, and that the guest should not abuse it. From early
times tallies were exchanged between them as evidence of this formal
relationship, which each could claim again of the other by the
production of the token. And further, the relationship on either side
became hereditary. Thus individuals and families and tribes remained
linked in friendship and in the interchange of hospitalities.
Under the same patronage of Zeus and the same laws of hospitality were
vagrants and beggars. The vagrant and loafer are sketched in the
_Odyssey_--the vagrant who lies glibly that he may get entertainment,
and the loafer who prefers begging to work on a farm. These and the
winter idlers, whom Hesiod pictures--a group known to modern
life--prefer at that season to spend their time in the warmth of the
village smithy, or at a house of common resort ([Greek: lesche])--a
common lodging-house, we might say--where they would pass the night.
Apparently, as in modern times, the vagrants had organized their own
system of entertainment, and, supported by the public, were a class for
whom it was worth while to cater. The local or public beggars formed a
still more definite class. Their begging was a recognized means of
maintenance; it was a part of the method of poor relief. Thus of
Penelope it was said that, if Odysseus' tale were true, she would give
him better clothes, and then he might beg his bread throughout the
country-side. Feasts, too, and almsgiving were nearly allied, and feasts
have always been one resource for the relief of the poor. Thus naturally
the beggars frequented feasts, and were apparently a recognized and yet
inevitable nuisance. They wore, as part of their dress, scrips or
wallets in which they carried away the food they received, as later
Roman clients carried away portions of food in baskets (_sportula_) from
their patron's dinner. Odysseus, when he dresses up as a beggar, puts on
a wallet as part of his costume. Thus we find a system of voluntary
relief in force based on a recognition of the duty of almsgiving as
complete and peremptory as that which we shall notice later among the
Jews and the early Christians. We are concerned with country districts,
and not with towns, and, as social conditions that are similar produce
similar methods of administration, so we find here a general plan of
relief similar to that which was in vogue in Scotland till the Scottish
Poor Law Act of 1845.
In Hesiod the fundamental conceptions of charity are more clearly
expressed. He has, if not his ten, at least his four commandments, for
disobedience to which Zeus will punish the offender. They are: Thou
shalt do no evil to suppliant or guest; thou shalt not dishonour any
woman of the family; thou shalt not sin against the orphan; thou shalt
not be unkind to aged parents.
The laws of social life are thus duty to one's guest and duty to one's
family; and chastity has its true place in that relation, as the later
Greeks, who so often quote Hesiod (cf. the so-called _Economics_ of
Aristotle), fully realized. Also the family charities due to the
orphan, whose lot is deplored in the _Iliad_ (xxii. 490), and to the
aged are now clearly enunciated. But there is also in Hesiod the duty
to one's neighbour, not according to the "perfection" of "Cristes
lore," but according to a law of honourable reciprocity in act and
intent. "Love him who loves thee, and cleave to him who cleaveth to
thee: to him who would have given, give; to him who would not have
given, give not." The groundwork of Hesiod's charity outside the
family is neighbourly help (such as formed no small part of old
Scottish charity in the country districts); and he put his argument
thus: Competition, which is a kind of strife, "lies in the roots of
the world and in men." It is good, and rouses the idle "handless" man
to work. On one side are social duty ([Greek: dike]) and work, done
briskly at the right season of the year, which brings a full barn. On
the other side are unthrift and hunger, and relief with the disgrace
of begging; and the relief, when the family can do no more, must come
from neighbours, to whose house the beggar has to go with his wife and
children to ask for victual. Once they may be helped, or twice, and
then they will be refused. It is better, Hesiod tells his brother, to
work and so pay off his debts and avoid hunger (see _Erga_, 391, &c.,
and elsewhere). Here indeed is a problem of to-day as it appeared to
an early Greek. The alternatives before the idler--so far as his own
community is concerned--are labour with neighbourly help to a limited
extent, or hunger.
Hesiod was a farmer in Boeotia. Some 530 years afterwards a pupil of
Aristotle thus describes the district and its community of farmers.
"They are," he says, "well to do, but simple in their way of life.
They practise justice, good faith, and hospitality. To needy townsmen
and vagabonds they give freely of their substance; for meanness and
covetousness are unknown to them." The charitable method of Homeric
and Hesiodic days still continued.